Re: Re: money and health - POLITICS/ private firefighting

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:22:17 EST

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>> The absence of

>> government power is no guarantee of utopia.

>

>I never said it was. As to fires, I haven't given it much thought, but I'm

>willing to accept public organization if it is proved necessary, and any

>sensible community would. However, look at how most fire departments are run.

>Except in cities, they are mostly volunteer organizations, and when they're

not,

>their run by the municipality.

Here is a brief diddy about private fire fighting and then a link to a

longer article that goes into further detail:

October 29, 2003

Privatized Fire Fighting

Posted by DiLorenzo at October 29, 2003 10:28 AM

The Rural/Metro Corporation of sdale, Arizona, shows the superiority

of private fire fighting to the Keystone Cops operations that exist in

all government-run fire departments. Rural Metro's emphasis is on fire

prevention, not just showing up when it's too late. And they do more

than take out public service ads urging people to buy smoke alarms. They

provide high-quality fire protection services to rural areas that

governments won't go near (for economic reasons, naturally). They simply

charge a modest annual fee that the residents of these areas a happy to

pay. They tailor the services to indidual communities, even removing

poisonous desert reptiles from homes at no extra charge.

The average cost to Rural/Metro customers is 25-50 percent lower than

similar services provided by governments although very few, if any,

government fire departments can match the quality of Rural/Metro's

services. The company even has a wild-land fire division, which could

have come in handy in California this week. The company operates in 50

communities in five states despite the fact that its competitors are

subsidized 100 percent by the taxpayers. Its fire trucks are painted

lime green because a national study said that was the most visible color

at night and in bad weather. Read more about it on www.libertyhaven.com

http://tinyurl.com/2tm2y

The burden of proof is on the advocate of

>taxation that the tax is necessary, and it should be enacted in such a way that

it

>is relatively easy to escape it if one does not want to pay it (and of course

>not receieve the benefit the tax offers.)

Hmmm....so what if most folks decided to opt out of it? It sounds to me

like your essentially after the fact voluntary " escape " is not that far

from anarcho-capitalism, but why one would aggress/initiate force in the

first place instead of of using a voluntary approach initially is

puzzling, given that in your scenario folks can opt out anyway.

By the way, you might find this article interesting:

What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist

http://tinyurl.com/33ymr

and this one as well:

What Is Anarchy?

http://tinyurl.com/2eb5o

>> Hardly. As I'm sure even you'd agree, the government is vulnerable to

>> lobbying -- which is to say to the power of money.

>

>Yes, it is. But the government is not vulnerable to lobbying for things

>beyond its capacity if the government is held to a certain standard: namely,

not

>breaking its own laws.

Good luck <g>

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/21/04 9:28:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> The burden of proof is on the advocate of

> >taxation that the tax is necessary, and it should be enacted in such a way

> that it

> >is relatively easy to escape it if one does not want to pay it (and of

> course

> >not receieve the benefit the tax offers.)

>

> Hmmm....so what if most folks decided to opt out of it? It sounds to me

> like your essentially after the fact voluntary " escape " is not that far

> from anarcho-capitalism, but why one would aggress/initiate force in the

> first place instead of of using a voluntary approach initially is

> puzzling, given that in your scenario folks can opt out anyway.

I started out by saying that the burden of the proof is on the advocate of

taxation. Considering I've referred to taxation as " theft, " that's a pretty

strong burden of proof. I'm not claiming that municipalities *need* to tax for

fire departments, but if it were to happen that privitized fire departments

turned out to be some sort of unmitigated disaster, which I don't think it

would,

you could make some sort of case to justify it. If the tax is enacted at the

municipal level, it would be possible to distinguish whether there were any

objectors and how many, etc.

Chris